The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant or E did not intrude into the residence of the victim.

The defendant had no intention to commit an intrusion upon residence.

B. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal principle is dismissed as a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

C. The first instance judgment on the unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged and judgment of the first instance court

A. On August 31, 2013, around 16:24, 2013, the Defendant violated the victim’s residence by having the gas inspector E remove the corrective device under the above 305 and open the door, using the preliminary heat chain in his/her custody, even though the gas inspector was placed at the victim D’s residence in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu 305, but did not open the door.

B. The first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in the judgment.

3. The crime of intrusion upon residence should be deemed to have commenced, in a case where specific acts for intrusion have commenced, for example, by committing a crime of intrusion upon residence, such as attaching a correction device entering a residence or opening a door, etc., the crime of intrusion upon residence was committed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do2561 delivered on September 15, 1995). If the crime of intrusion upon residence is completed, the whole or part of a person’s body may enter the residence and enjoy the residence, to the extent that it would undermine the peace of the de facto residence that the resident enjoy.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, it can be recognized that the defendant, without confirming the victim's intention, cancelled the preliminary heat chain and opened a door to E in order to enter the victim's residence without confirming the victim's intention, and this should be deemed to have commenced the implementation of the crime of intrusion upon residence.

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted according to the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the body of the defendant or E.